By Richard Engel, Alastair Jamieson and Ghazi Balkiz, NBC News
The U.N. Security Council said Wednesday it was necessary to clarify reports from Syria's opposition that hundreds of civilians – including many women and children – have been killed in chemical weapons attacks.
The council, however, stopped short of demanding a probe by U.N. investigators in Syria -- although said it welcomed U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon's calls for one.
"There is a strong concern among council members about the allegations and a general sense that there must be clarity on what happened and the situation must be followed closely," Argentina's U.N. ambassador, Maria Cristina Perceval said following the emergency meeting.

Activists and rebel fighters accused Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces of firing chemical-tipped weapons into rebel-held areas near the capital, Damascus, in the early hours.
The Obama administration "strongly condemned" the reported use of the weapons which, if confirmed, would be by far the worst known use of poison gas during the country’s deadly civil war.

The White House called for Assad to allow an immediate and transparent U.N. investigation of the incident.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that a U.N. team is on the ground in Syria to conduct the investigation and acknowledged that the United States does not have independent confirmation that chemical weapons were used.

“We are hopeful that the Assad regime will follow through on what they have claimed previously, that they are interested in a credible investigation that gets to the bottom of reports that chemical weapons have been used,” Earnest said.

Videos apparently showing the graphic and disturbing aftermath of the alleged attacks on the rebel-held eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta were posted to social media but could not be independently verified. The clips showed children choking and vomiting, while adults writhed in agony.
State television denied the opposition claims, which it said were disseminated deliberately to distract United Nations chemical weapons experts who arrived in the country on Monday.

Musab abu Qutada, a spokesman for the local military council of the Free Syria Army, who is in the area near where the attacks took place, said the death toll had reached more than 1,200. NBC News could not verify the claim.
Several towns and villages to the east and north of the capital were attacked by surface-to-surface missiles beginning around 2 a.m. Wednesday (7 p.m. Tuesday ET), the rebel spokesman said.

Syrian activists inspect the bodies of people they say were killed by nerve gas in the Ghouta region near Damascus on Wednesday.

“The deceased and the wounded are in field hospitals,” he said in a Skype interview. “We have about 1,228 victims. We are in need of medicine. We are in need of medical staff.”
The “chemical bombardment” was so strong that doctors at the scene had also died from the effects of the gas, he said.
“There were some symptoms like numbing of the body, constricted pupils of the eye, foam coming out of the mouth, paleness of faces, shortness of breath," he said.
“The areas that were targeted were civilian areas, they are not military areas. They targeted women and children to apply pressure on the Free Syrian Army.”

The gas was heavy and sunk into basements, witnesses told NBC News. Some people lit tires on fire, hoping the smoke from the burning tires would offset the gas. The black smoke, however, only created more chaos and panic.
A doctor said some victims reported smelling a faint odor of insecticide at the time of the rocket attacks. Most of the victims were sleeping when the attacks took place.

The first rocket assaults on the eastern villages lasted roughly an hour; then, villages to the north began to be attacked in the same way -- surface-to-surface rockets that exploded to release a poison gas.

Conflicting death tolls from different sources could not immediately be reconciled by NBC News. Witness accounts are impossible to verify because Syria does not allow journalists to operate freely inside its borders.
Advertise | AdChoices

The opposition Local Coordination Committees in Syria put the death toll at more than 755, saying several areas had been hit by “shelling with poisonous gases.”

It said the areas hit included Ein Tarma and Zamalka in eastern Ghouta and Mouadamieh in western Ghouta.

Susan Ahmad, who lives just over one mile from the areas, described a smell in the air and reported having burning, red eyes and dizziness after the attacks.

“There is a very strange smell and it’s a very ugly one,” she told NBC News’ U.K. partner ITV News. “It’s nasty. You feel like there is something wrong in the air."

She added: “The death toll is likely to be higher and higher because don’t have enough [medicine] to save lives.”

Bayan Baker, a nurse at a field hospital in Douma, told Reuters that the death toll from the attack, collated from medical centers in the region, was 213.

"Many of the casualties are women and children. They arrived with their pupils dilated, cold limbs and foam in their mouths. The doctors say these are typical symptoms of nerve gas victims," she said.

I understand the points made by Patteau and Walker, and felt very much the same for most of my life, but over the past decade or so, I no longer believe in the leadership of this country and am very suspect that this "leadership" has my best interest in mind for either me as a citizen, or my son, as a soldier, or really any of us for that matter. That being said, it would be totally up to my son. If he felt it his duty and privilege, I wouldn't stand in his way.

This would be a war of aggression. Why should me or my family to go and die in a war in which America will gain nothing and there is no threat to the country or populace at all?

This is one of the dangers of having a standing military, people want to use it. There is no greater waste of blood and treasure then war.

This wasn't specifically about the Syrian situation. We don't go to war without believing that there's at least some threat to the country or populace. Unfortunately but necessarily, we don't exist in a society where every citizen is fully informed and capable of judging what the threat is, but instead rely on a representative form of government to evaluate these things for us.

Some of the dangers of not having a standing military are ineffective diplomacy, no ability to defend your interests, and being at the mercy of those who do.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

I understand the points made by Patteau and Walker, and felt very much the same for most of my life, but over the past decade or so, I no longer believe in the leadership of this country and am very suspect that this "leadership" has my best interest in mind for either me as a citizen, or my son, as a soldier, or really any of us for that matter. That being said, it would be totally up to my son. If he felt it his duty and privilege, I wouldn't stand in his way.

I agree that it's their choice and as a father I'd love my son no matter what he chose. In other words, if I had a son, I wouldn't excommunicate him from the family for dodging a draft even though I don't think it's the right thing to do.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Here's why your son goes: because it's your country. Because the country is run by the people that you and I elected, and if it's a mistake, then we go with it. Because if we each stood on our own and questioned every single decision, we'd never stand together as a country. Because you don't know as much as the leadership does. Because if your son runs to Canada, his neighbor is going to have to take up the slack and may end up eating a bullet.

But yes, you should question war. You should also question the s*** out of the government, vigorously and often. Our country was designed so that we can and should do exactly that, and it works. You - we - should question who we vote for, because when we vote, we are endorsing someone to decide when and how and if to send your son into combat, and therefore you should vote for someone who shares your view on that. That shady politician didn't inherit his position; he was put there by you.

The fact that only about half of the people in this country give enough of a s*** to vote on who sends our young men to war is pretty damn shameful, if you ask me.

This is a much better post than mine was.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

This wasn't specifically about the Syrian situation. We don't go to war without believing that there's at least some threat to the country or populace. Unfortunately but necessarily, we don't exist in a society where every citizen is fully informed and capable of judging what the threat is, but instead rely on a representative form of government to evaluate these things for us.

Your reasoning is crap and recent history shows that it is crap. The US has gone to war where no one believed the people we were fighting were a threat to the country or populace.

Quote:

Some of the dangers of not having a standing military are ineffective diplomacy, no ability to defend your interests, and being at the mercy of those who do.

The ocean and the 2nd amendment are much bigger protections against foreign aggression then a standing military is. 'A rifle behind every blade of grass' is a deterrent much pricklier then a standing army.

Already we can see Cochise willing to believe anything about Syria. Smells like Iraq. But don't you know that Syria's Christian back Assad?

Where did I say I was willing to believe anything? I asked for an explanation. If things aren't as they seem - that the side which is known to possess chemical weapons and has used them before used them again - then what happened?

I'm not going to side with someone who gasses whole civilian neighborhoods no matter what religion his followers are.

Not our war, it's disgusting (if actually true which I have my doubts) but we need to steer clear. I've seen the same type of claims from both sides, I repeat this is NOT Our war.

Frankly, I don't care if crazy muslims A want to kill crazy muslims B and they slice each other up for 20 or 30 years. If they keep it within their borders then they can fight it out forever for all I care.

When they dothings like gassing kids, the international community can do something. I'm not talking about military intervention, I don't see any situation where we should have an American foot on the ground in Syria, but the world should do something beyond the Obama Doctrine, dithering and taking polls.

Your reasoning is crap and recent history shows that it is crap. The US has gone to war where no one believed the people we were fighting were a threat to the country or populace.

I'm in no way an advocate for war in all of those places, but it doesn't take a genius to see that we have energy and trade interests throughout the middle east and that we had an interest in stemming the spread of the Soviet sphere of influence in our neighborhood.

Narrowly defining "threat" to include only threats to our homeland soil and our citizens therein, is crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

The ocean and the 2nd amendment are much bigger protections against foreign aggression then a standing military is. 'A rifle behind every blade of grass' is a deterrent much pricklier then a standing army.

Welcome to the modern world were our economy is globally dependent and the power to inflict great damage is more portable than ever. Those rifles didn't do much to prevent 9/11, they won't deter foreign navies from blocking trade routes, and they won't make foreign governments give even a first thought, much less a second one, before they confiscate the overseas property of an American company or persecute American expatriates.

The level of demilitarization and isolationism that you're advocating is even more silly than the people who want to force other countries to adopt our way of life at the end of a gun.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

This is an example of why our country is weak. People going their own way when the going gets tough. War sucks and we don't involve ourselves in it lightly, but when we do we need to pull together or we can't expect to be able to make a difference. And the more incapable we are to fight a war, the more likely it is that we'll be invited against our will to join one.

The good news is that we aren't going to have a draft again unless the country is really in dire straits (or if radically liberal politicians manage to make equal exposure to service across socio-economic and racial lines trump national security).

No one wants their child to die. But no one wants their child to die so your child can hide safely in Canada either.

we've been fighting perpetual wars for decades. sit down and . Calling out somebody because they do not want to join the military to kill people.

I'm in no way an advocate for war in all of those places, but it doesn't take a genius to see that we have energy and trade interests throughout the middle east and that we had an interest in stemming the spread of the Soviet sphere of influence in our neighborhood.

Narrowly defining "threat" to include only threats to our homeland soil and our citizens therein, is crap.

Your elected representatives in all their esteemed glory decided that we needed to go to war in all those places. We have trade interests yes but those interests don't need to be backed up by the point of a gun. The US government is not there to be the stick behind American businesses. So send your kid to die to protect the property of American businesses because the elected representatives that you hold in high esteem decided that is a higher priority then the life or health of the populace.

The Soviets would of collapsed with or without American intervention. In fact the further they expanded their holdings the faster it would of happened. The Soviet economy only worked because of the massive black market and shadow economy within the CCCP.

Quote:

Welcome to the modern world were our economy is globally dependent and the power to inflict great damage is more portable than ever.

And if we didn't try to stick our nose in everybody's business and play world cop. We wouldn't have much backlash.

Quote:

Those rifles didn't do much to prevent 9/11,

If we would of stayed out of the business in the Middle East, Osama would of stayed targeting the Saudi regime instead of the US.

Quote:

they won't deter foreign navies from blocking trade routes,

Who would be stupid enough to do that? America is the largest economy in the world. You make more money trading with us then raiding us.

Quote:

and they won't make foreign governments give even a first thought, much less a second one, before they confiscate the overseas property of an American company or persecute American expatriates.

Buyer beware. If the company guesses that such a government is stable enough to not do so and guesses wrong why should blood and treasure be spent on a private companies gamble?

Quote:

The level of demilitarization and isolationism that you're advocating is even more silly than the people who want to force other countries to adopt our way of life at the end of a gun.

If you haven't noticed we are broke. We are heavy in debt. Part of that is social spending and part of that is our overseas adventurism and military spending. You know why the taxes were levied on the colonists that eventually led them to rebellion? It was because the British government was broke due to their overseas wars against France.

Frankly, I don't care if crazy muslims A want to kill crazy muslims B and they slice each other up for 20 or 30 years. If they keep it within their borders then they can fight it out forever for all I care.

When they dothings like gassing kids, the international community can do something. I'm not talking about military intervention, I don't see any situation where we should have an American foot on the ground in Syria, but the world should do something beyond the Obama Doctrine, dithering and taking polls.

Agree 1000%

Find the perpetrators hold them accountable. We need to ace the pottery barn rule. We dont have to nation build in every country we touch.

Send in drones; send these aholes to the Hague, something.

Like i said, i also tend to agree with the people who dont want another war. But i dont know why its always in for a penny in for a pound. Were going broke with that philosophy